• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Tax Tsunami On The Horizon

1) your nephew volunteered and got hurt. My uncle was KIA in WWII-I don't blame FDR for that. Obama is running up a far bigger debt than Bush. Yet I bet you voted for Obama.

2) so again how were you objectively hurt by Bush

I'm sorry, but WWII was justified; Iraq was not. being a volunteer does not excuse the CIC from being reckless.

Objectively, as I already stated, fighting two wars without the means to pay for them hurt us. This is not hard to follow. Hard to dispute, but not hard to follow.
 
And your side keeps claiming that Tax Cuts magically fix the economy, but Bush's Tax Cuts did not avoid the recession and they brought Americans taxes to their lowest rates ever.

tax cuts fix the economy of those being soaked so their wealth can be used to buy the votes of the parasites. That is good enough for me.

I don't buy into the crap that some should be forced to carry most of the weight of the rest of the population.

I know that we cannot tax our way to prosperity and if you tax the productive too much they leave and the parasites starve
 
I'm sorry, but WWII was justified; Iraq was not. being a volunteer does not excuse the CIC from being reckless.

Objectively, as I already stated, fighting two wars without the means to pay for them hurt us. This is not hard to follow. Hard to dispute, but not hard to follow.

Opinion noted-not shared.
 
Opinion noted-not shared.

Do think it's an opinion that wars cost money? Seriously? Do you think it is an opinion that Bush didn't ask us to pay for them? Seriously. You would be wrong on both counts.
 
1: They pulled us --out-- of a recession
2: Not even close.

libs or alleged moderates tend to be rather ignorant of history-until the end of the Hoover (what a great name for a tax hiking moron) income taxes were non-existent or rates that were under 5% paid by very few.

That is the only thing that can explain such blatant errors
 
Do think it's an opinion that wars cost money? Seriously? Do you think it is an opinion that Bush didn't ask us to pay for them? Seriously. You would be wrong on both counts.

I thought your point was that WWII was necessary and Iraq was not

and we have the means to pay for them-we just have to get rid of all the unconstitutional crap the government does-ie the stuff that started with FDR's power grab
 
I thought your point was that WWII was necessary and Iraq was not

and we have the means to pay for them-we just have to get rid of all the unconstitutional crap the government does-ie the stuff that started with FDR's power grab

That's one point, but not finanacial point we're discussing. But it is not an opinion about the neccesity of Iraq either. There is no objective reasoning that justifies the cost of Iraq. None.
 
The U.S. needs to reduce spending and increase taxes to survive. This is the most basic factor at play in the current economy.

The years of luxury and spending beyond one's means are over. Time to buckle down and pay your dues.
 
That's one point, but not finanacial point we're discussing. But it is not an opinion about the neccesity of Iraq either. There is no objective reasoning that justifies the cost of Iraq. None.

Your opinion noted-again not shared

there is no objective reasoning that justifies the costs of

1) the war on poverty
2) the war on drugs
3) affirmative action
4) The "Great Society"
5) "The New Deal"
 
The U.S. needs to reduce spending and increase taxes to survive. This is the most basic factor at play in the current economy.

The years of luxury and spending beyond one's means are over. Time to buckle down and pay your dues.

so lets jack up taxes on the people who drive the spending and don't pay enough since they are the ones who vote for most of that reckless spending.

the rich pay far more than their dues-they pay the dues of about half or more of society

time for the slackers to step up ot the plate
 
Your opinion noted-again not shared

there is no objective reasoning that justifies the costs of

1) the war on poverty
2) the war on drugs
3) affirmative action
4) The "Great Society"
5) "The New Deal"

Nice diversion, but the fact remainds, there is no justifiable or objective reasoning for the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Nothing holds up objectively.
 
Nice diversion, but the fact remainds, there is no justifiable or objective reasoning for the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Nothing holds up objectively.

again your opinion--a statement you cannot prove. It is based on your values and I merely can disagree.

you'd be better off arguing Red is a better color than blue
 
again your opinion--a statement you cannot prove. It is based on your values and I merely can disagree.

you'd be better off arguing Red is a better color than blue

So what you're saying is. You can't justify the invasion of Iraq. Good to know.
 
So what you're saying is. You can't justify the invasion of Iraq. Good to know.

I don't have to

we live in a representative constitutional government and that decision was made in accordance with our constitution by those charged with making the decision. You aren't smart enough to claim that you know all the information available to those who made that decision so you cannot make a definitive judgment. What I do know is that squashing one cockroach often causes other cockroaches to stop what they are doing. Saddam was a cockroach.
 
again your opinion--a statement you cannot prove. It is based on your values and I merely can disagree.

you'd be better off arguing Red is a better color than blue

No, there are objective values.
 
so lets jack up taxes on the people who drive the spending and don't pay enough since they are the ones who vote for most of that reckless spending.

And that would be the rich and the industry owners, for the most part. Don't forget that the affluent create tax policy.

the rich pay far more than their dues-they pay the dues of about half or more of society

And they want it that way.

time for the slackers to step up ot the plate

You can't tax the lower classes beyond the current rates or they will not be able to survive. That is the whole reason why taxing the poor beyond a stable living standard has never been an effective revenue policy, and it leads to social unrest.
 
And that would be the rich and the industry owners, for the most part. Don't forget that the affluent create tax policy.



And they want it that way.



You can't tax the lower classes beyond the current rates or they will not be able to survive. That is the whole reason why taxing the poor beyond a stable living standard has never been an effective revenue policy, and it leads to social unrest.

1) those who are rich because they pander to the parasite class are the ones who formulated the tax policy that infects our nation

2) those who claim to represent the producers of wealth sort of go along with it because they get power from that as well. Its like civil defense attorneys not being huge fans of tort reform because they justify 500 dollar an hour fees by the fear their clients have of being looted by parasites like John Edwards

3) Some of the rich want it that way if they think it makes them richer than the alternative. Others don't.

4) the lower taxes can certainly pay more taxes. And raising their taxes would create an effective brake on their desires for more government spending that they don't have to fund. when most of our "poor" own cars and tv's and cell phones we are well away from some modern day Bastille day if they are given less and told to pay more.

besides, a massive uprising by the poor would result in some self-corrections resulting in far less poor
 
more lamer nonsense.

your opinion is not objective

No, you can objectively determine if a candy bar is worth two lives and a billion dollars. In much the same way, you can objectively determine that we did not have just reason or cause to invade. And that it cost far more than we gained. You can't write that off as mere opinion.
 
No, you can objectively determine if a candy bar is worth two lives and a billion dollars. In much the same way, you can objectively determine that we did not have just reason or cause to invade. And that it cost far more than we gained. You can't write that off as mere opinion.


that is oozing bull crap. YOu cannot tell us how much we gained until many years into the future
 
No, you can objectively determine if a candy bar is worth two lives and a billion dollars. In much the same way, you can objectively determine that we did not have just reason or cause to invade. And that it cost far more than we gained. You can't write that off as mere opinion.

in all fairness if I were really hungry I'd trade you for a candy bar. It certainly would be worth more to me objectively.
 
in all fairness if I were really hungry I'd trade you for a candy bar. It certainly would be worth more to me objectively.

And can be measured objectively.

Nothing adds up to justify Iraq.
 
And can be measured objectively.

Nothing adds up to justify Iraq.

feel free to predict the future objectively

you are making stuff up now
 
that is oozing bull crap. YOu cannot tell us how much we gained until many years into the future

Sure you can. Even if Iraq becomes heaven on earth, we still spent too much. It is false to say we can't measure today. We spent a ton of money, help our enemy recruit, made things better for Iran, lost thousnads of lives, and we've no safer than we were. In fact, nothing in Iraq applies to our safety at all. No country attacked us, and a democracy has no effect on terrorist, the Bush premise flawed from the beginging. All of this can be objectively measured.
 
So what you're saying is. You can't justify the invasion of Iraq. Good to know.

I don't have to

we live in a representative constitutional government and that decision was made in accordance with our constitution by those charged with making the decision. You aren't smart enough to claim that you know all the information available to those who made that decision so you cannot make a definitive judgment. What I do know is that squashing one cockroach often causes other cockroaches to stop what they are doing. Saddam was a cockroach.


Using your logic Welfare, the bailouts do not need to be justified because you are not smart enough to claim to know all the information that those who made the decision to enact those policies. As you state they were charged with making those decisions
 
Back
Top Bottom